Today Fresh Air is broadcasting my interview with Terry Gross on the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), as the movement has been dubbed by C. Peter Wagner. This is a Charismatic Dominionist movement which has gained clout in both the Religious Right and in politics in the last few years. Welcome to newcomers to Talk2action.org!

Contributors to this website have been writing for several years about the New Apostolic Reformation and the "Third Wave" block of Independent Charismatics from which it emerged. We invite you to search through the website, including the special focus box in the left panel titled Resource Directory for the New Apostolic Reformation. Another search tool is the TTA Site search function in the upper right corner which allows you to search by terms or names.

For a brief visual introduction to the movement and how it intersects with politics, watch the following two minute video compilation from the International Transformation Network conference in 2009, led by Apostles Pat Francis and Ed Silvoso. Also participating were Lt. Governor Duke Aiona, who ran for governor in 2010, and a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Some of the contributors to the website include pioneers in the research and analysis of dominion theology and Christian Reconstructionism, including Frederick Clarkson and Chip Berlet. Other contributors include Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Several regular contributors to the website, including Bruce Wilson, are working to gather documentation and analysis of the New Apostolic Reformation. This includes the network of apostles and prophets of the International Coalition of Apostles, led until recently by C. Peter Wagner, and other similar "apostolic and prophetic" networks around the world. There are more than 150 articles on Talk2action about the New Apostolic Reformation and many more about other forms of Dominionism, including Christian Reconstructionism.

Note that the New Apostolic Reformation and related apostolic and prophetic relational networks are an evolving movement and one that does not wish to be viewed as an institutionalized denomination. The apostles view themselves as uniting the church for the end times under the authority of their apostles, not as a sectarian movement. C. Peter Wagner describes is as "the greatest change in church since the Protestant Reformation taking place before our eyes." It has been difficult to describe the movement inside the denominational paradigms with which we are accustomed.

Sometimes links in articles to websites will be broken. The movement is rapidly developing and has tried many different initiatives, including changes in websites and names of entities. For example, the NAR's "prayer warrior" networks have changed their name from Spiritual Warfare Network to Strategic Spiritual Network to Global Apostolic Prayer Network. Two leading apostles, Cindy Jacobs and John Benefiel, both endorsers of Rick Perry's prayer event on August 6, lead the Reformation Prayer Network and the Heartland Apostolic Prayer Network.

The movement has two major media campaigns promoting their agenda. One is the Seven Mountains campaign and the other is a series of "Transformations" movies. There are now Transformations organizations all over the world, based on the concepts taught in the Transformations series of movies.

The Kenyan pastor who anointed Sarah Palin at Wasilla Assembly of God in 2005, was a star in the first and several subsequent Transformations movies. These movies have included political leaders from around the world from Ugandan President and First Lady Museveni to Sam Brownback. Read an extensive 2008 report on the Transformations movies titled Spiritual Mapping and Spiritual Warfare: Muthee and the Transformations Franchise.

Talk2action contributors have documented the movement's "transformation" efforts in Uganda, Hawaii, New Jersey, and many other locations.

The NAR apostles have not limited their support to Republican candidates. The video compilation embedded below includes Apostle Kimberly Daniels, recently elected to the city council of Jacksonville, Florida, as a Democrat. Also in the video are Apostles Cindy Jacobs and Harry Jackson.

The Resource Directory on the New Apostolic Reformation, always visible in the left panel, has a list with many more articles on the topic.

Welcome to Talk2action! We hope you will join our contributors on this journey to uncover, study, and discuss the impact of the New Apostolic Reformation on American society and government.

In the now-infamous Washington Post piece, Lisa Miller referred to NAR as "previously unknown".
A very quick check on GOOGLE turned up in excess of 300,000 hits--stretching back to 1999.
Draw your own conclusion about Lisa Miller and how curious she is, and how carefully she does even the most elementary research....
Also, a curious note to the initialism NAR: in Yiddish, a "nar" is a fool......

I know little about this movement specifically, i can certainly see why the speaker sees this as dangerous. After all, praying to change the country for the better, hoping to break down racial barriers and promote Christian spiritual brotherhood, while calling for repentance from sin, and Biblical immorality, and overall work towards making God's will be done on earth as it is in Heaven, and souls controlled from within, enabling smaller government due to is very dangerous to those who work toward a very different ideology, one that has cost America greatly in lives, money and souls (25% of women infected with an STD, half a million Americans dead from AIDS, 1 out of 32 having been in prison, etc.)

I also understand why NPR spends its monies to warn of this, considering its bias toward such, manifested in so many of its other programs.

While Tabachnick places the intolerant stigma on such movements, and which also support a traditional understanding of the 1st Amendment, versus a militant state-sanctioned secularism, she herself and her liberal ideology warriors constantly manifest their own intolerance against those who oppose their elists social experimentation which scorns opposition and their freedom to do so.

interpretation of the bible is because those texts support both the fundamentalist and liberal views of it, which in my view makes the theological issues moot when it comes to battling dominionism. Where Christian dominionist-based groups are wrong is on the facts of the history and the founding of this country. What made this country unique was the separation of religion and government. In fact, these groups are completely wrong on that point, and the political push being fomented by groups involved in the New Apostolic Reformation movement is anti-democracy, period.

The "intolerance" you refer to is not against a particular interpretation of Christianity (at least it shouldn't be), it is against using the government of the United States of America as a vehicle for Christian proselytizing.

May I suggest that you do a little reading of the history of civilization and discover what the wedding of religion and government has given us over thousands of years. It is precisely that history that inspired our founders to reject the goals of groups like the New Apostolic Reformation.

The latter is invalid as its depends upon a heremenutic that effectively negates the very authority of the Scriptures which it seeks to invoke, and cannot be said to resemble what we see in Scripture. And this is not a moot point, but foundational.

What made this country unique was the separation of religion and government.

That was helpful - and Biblical, as the church is not constituted to rule over those without, (1Cor. 5:12) or use physical force against such, as its kingdom is spiritual, and its wars is against spiritual powers, and thus its weapons are prayers, words, etc. (Jn. 18:36; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) while it sanctions the just use of the sword by the civil government. (Rn. 14:1-7; 1Pt. 2:13,14)

Communism also holds to separation of powers, but as history attests (not the liberal revisionist version) the Founders and successors overall did not understand the 1st Amendment as mandating strict state-sanctioned secularism so that things like Bible reading in schools was utterly disallowed, and paranoid about any sanction of the default Christian faith, as strict separationists are today.

But what helped make America uniquely great as it was a type a vibrant Christian faith that worked to bring souls to be controlled from within so that they need not be controlled from without thus enabling smaller government, while the ever-morphing downward "liberal" ethos, with its basic manifest animus toward moral absolutes of Scripture, works the opposite

During the years between the inaugurations of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, historians see "evangelicalism emerging as a kind of national church or national religion."

Converting their fellow citizens to Christianity was, for them, an act that simultaneously saved souls and saved the republic. The American Home Missionary Society assured its supporters in 1826 that "we are doing the work of patriotism no less than Christianity. (Religion and the New Republic, Library of Congress exhibit )

And now, from what i heard i would say dominionist are seeking to do for their ideology the same as those who support a liberal agenda do.

As for the dominionist are trying to do being unconstitutional, unless they are seeking to create a formal theocracy, then i see no crisis with them working to elect the candidate which reflects their values, and return the country back to a more historical and mutually beneficial relationship btwn church and state.

However, you do illustrate the fact that there is a war within Christianity between fundamentalists, like you appear to be, and liberals, who are heavily represented on this site. This constant theological skirmishing gets in the way of the basic problem we have of Christian dominionists who through their ignorance of our history and total lack of understanding of one of the dearest gifts given to us-separation of religion and government- seek to tear down the very thing that gave them the opportunity and atmosphere to flourish in the first place. It is like you are chipping away at the very foundation that gave you strength in the first place. You are the personification of what many of the founders feared the most, and if you read their letters, you would know how mistrustful many of them were of religious fervor. In fact, Jefferson and Adams shared the thought that if they had not set up our government they way they had, those involved in the "great spiritual awakening" in the early 1800's would surely have run rampant "pilloring and cropping" those who didn't share their beliefs. Jefferson and Madison created the University of VA with the express provisions to have no courses in religion and no clergy as professors. Do you think that reflects your view of their understanding of the Establishment Clause? Your claims about our history are way off base and your analogy with communism incredibly naive. Plus, the dominionists ARE trying to create an theocracy, and there is a long line of similar behavior that has popped up several times in our history and always tamped down- one example would be the movement to insert Jesus in the preamble in the late 1800's. Christian dominionism had been with us from the very start, as a letter to Washington by clergy complaining about the omission of God in the Constitution testifies.

As far as churches and religion needing a more "beneficial relationship" with government, I simply have to remind you that without government tax breaks and faith based government grants, many churches would fold up their tents. Religion in America has been on the government dole for at least 100 years. It has allowed the rise of mega churches and the take over of our health care system by religious institutions. It allows religious dominionists freed up money to use to destroy our democracy. It doesn't get any more beneficial that that, and it also picks my pocket and forces me to support religious ideas that go against my conscience.

Finally, I am not interested in any spiritual sword play using biblical quotes or any other biblical references in this debate. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of democratic republics. It's writings do not discuss those concepts in any way. The only slight reference to any political system besides monarchy is in Acts, where Peter essentially set up a communistic society where all were to hand over their wealth which was then distributed and shared by all the disciples and members of their group. I find it interesting when communism is brought up by fundamentalists as something to be abhored since it illustrates a fuzzy knowledge of their own stories.

So if you want to discuss religion's relationship to government, please leave the bible out of the discussion. It's not relevant. Neither is the attempt by anyone to join patiotism and any religion at the hip. In fact, history shows us over and over again how absolutely dangerous that is.

I am an atheist, so I don't carry a flag for liberal Christians. But I do have the same goals as they do, as they see our country as multi-cultural and multi-religious, and Christian fundamentalists/dominionists either do not see that, or see it and seek to destroy it. Most liberal Christians I know have a solid understanding of how important it is for the health of our country and for the freedom to worship to have MORE separation and not less. Plus most liberal Christians see atheists as equal citizens deserving equal rights, including freedom FROM religion. Fundamentalists/dominionists do not see that.

Your arguments and sympathy for Christian dominionism are not effective, fraught with historical errors, and totally unconvincing. The place you want to "return" the country to never existed in America, and hopefully never will.

you do illustrate the fact that there is a war within Christianity between fundamentalists, like you appear to be, and liberals, who are heavily represented on this site

Of course, there is, but as said, the liberal position, such as relegates Old Testament historical narratives to being folk tales, and to be much the work of endless ("homophobic") redactors, with no coherent sexual ethic, and negate the exclusive claims of Christ and the gospel, etc., is easily seen to be spurious. The New Testament church did not treat them that way, and was persecuted for its exclusive claims, and all truth claims are anyway. There is a vast difference between Fred Phelps and the typical evangelical believer (though some of your militant counterparts seek to equate the two), so likewise there is between a Walter Wink type "Christianity' and that of the apostle Paul, and the former are manifestly not fundamentally conformable to that of Scripture. Thus they must resort to interpretations that impugn the authority of Scripture itself.

And i am a fundamental Christian, and the Lord Jesus was even more so, which is why i stand opposed to the church having the coercive physical power of the state to punish disobedience, as well as against those who promote the liberal moral views or a revisionist theology such as described above.

...Christian dominionists who through their ignorance of our history and total lack of understanding of one of the dearest gifts given to us-separation of religion and government..

They may be to some degree, and i am opposed to an actual theocracy in which the church has the power of the State, or affirming one particular sect, versus working to elect those who reflect a basic Christian ethos, but the ranting against them doing the latter by their counterparts evidences an ignorance on the part of such adversaries, as they themselves are effectively seeking to impose their ideology upon us by doing likewise. You see them as deluded and dangerous, and oppose the state reflecting fundamental Christian moral beliefs and basic affirmation of Christianity, and work toward establishing a form of state-sanctioned secularism that is intolerant and even hostile to anything in government that is reflective of basic Christian-based morality, or that affirms it.

You do so under the pretext that the 1st Amendment forbids the government from sanctioning one religion over another even in a basic way, which is impossible, and the general liberal ethos which wars against much of traditional Christian moral stands (and thus us pro-abortion, pro-homosexual , etc.) replaces it, and its counterparts largely functions as religion. If 90% of the country were Baptists, or 90% Hindu, their respective ideology and basis for such would be reflected in many governmental laws and affirmation of values. But for gov. to require a person to be one or the other, or formally adhere to any kind of spiritual belief, or suppress any gov. expression of faith and so effectively convey support for atheism when the historical and present default faith of the people was/is another, would be another thing.

But to reiterate, while at one time evangelical Christian faith largely was the "civil religion," and was significantly affirmed by government in different ways, which even now militant atheists recognize and seek to purge, yet in a democracy the people can manifest what they really believe by votes, and as long as they can and do so fairly, then the government will reflect that general ethos. Whether the dominionists are influencing this fairly as opposed to George Soros and group like Acorn is a debate.

You are the personification of what many of the founders feared the most.

Militant disestablishment of religion results in the tyranny they feared, and your statements is another example of a ideology that is paranoid about evangelical type Christians seeking to have their general faith, especially in moral views, recognized and reflected, as it opposes a general liberal ethos which seeks the same power.

I have condemned the church using the powers of the State, and affirmed the basic separation of powers, and that the real battle is a spiritual, though Tabachnick even attacks that. But i am quite confident that if the Founders could speak today they would condemn the church for not influencing society and the government enough, in response to the liberal wresting of liberty to mean such things as protecting nudity in Penthouse as free speech, and promoting sexual experimentation among teens, to promoting a victim and entitlement mentality in which indolence is rewarded, etc..

Jefferson and Adams shared the thought that if they had not set up our government they way they had, those involved in the "great spiritual awakening" in the early 1800's would surely have run rampant "pilloring and cropping" those who didn't share their beliefs."

I am aware that the Founders has some varying beliefs, and were not all Christians like John Jay, Benjamin Rush, etc., nor perhaps always consistent, but they were opposed to an American theocracy, for valid reasons, and you have the Treaty of Tripoli, but in a "quote war" their affirmation of Christian faith would win, and Adam also stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," as it depends upon voters electing good men, and "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."

The Great Awakenings themselves were actually necessary for their noble goals, as government itself must be governed, and it is the people who do so best to the degree that they are governed by Heaven over Hell. As Robert Winthrop (May 12, 1809 - November 16, 1894), and Speaker of the House from 1838 to 1840, stated, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet."

And again, the general faith of the people will be reflected in whom they elect and the laws they pass. And as Blackstone will attest, these overall had a history which cannot be separated from religion. Those on the other side want their values reflected, but i think they are more elitists and less tolerant of opposition and debate than an evangelical Christianity which seeks to engage. And that you attempt to do so civilly is commendable.

Jefferson and Madison created the University of VA with the express provisions to have no courses in religion and no clergy as professors. Do you think that reflects your view of their understanding of the Establishment Clause?

And surely you are not inferring that this was the norm? During the colonial period the Bible was "the single most important cultural influence in the lives of Anglo-Americans." Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, Volumes 1-2, reports that in the first report of a public school in Washington which they had on file, in 1813 a Mr. Henry Ould states,
"55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are learning words of four and five letters."

Overall, the nature of early colleges and universities was religious, and this continued at least until the Civil War. Even State colleges had significant religious (most always Christian) components, such as mandatory religion courses and attendance at chapel services, while large numbers of their faculties had formal religious training. The second requirement of Harvard University's Lawes of 1642 , after requiring literacy in Latin, (which language the Scriptures were then mostly translated into), was that "Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. (John 17:3)

For as Theodore Roosevelt stated, "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." When the Engel v. Vitale case was decided, an estimated 75% of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings. (Colliers 1961 Yearbook p. 224)

To this can be added many more documented examples of implicit as well as official government support of general Christian faith, which i am sure does not reflects your view of their understanding of the Establishment Clause, which is a relatively recent interpretation.

As for Jefferson, his pledge to separate church and state may have been at least partly political motivated, based upon the discovery of words deleted by the president (nearly 30 percent of the draft) prior to publication. Moreover, Jefferson began to attend worship services held at the House of Representatives two days after writing the letter, and that he permitted regular worship services to be held there, a practice that continued until after the Civil War, with preachers from every Protestant denomination appearing there. And as early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, part 4

Your claims about our history are way off base and your analogy with communism incredibly naive

According to your decree, but such argument by assertions is like communism. Yet i have not gone to the extremes some go to in seeking to defend the Christian historicity of America, against those who assert the Founders where antagonistic against any expression or affirmation of the general Christian faith, as if all were like Paine, but i present referenced evidence to the contrary.

Plus, the dominionists ARE trying to create an theocracy.

I would have to do more research to determine the veracity of this claim, as opposed to simply seeking to see a government in which it does not mandate assent to any faith, though its laws overall are reflective of general Christian faith and morality, from rest on Sunday Presidential, proclamations which acknowledge Deity, versus atheism, Islam, or a pluralism that is intolerant of any who do not share its belief that there are no moral absolutes.

without government tax breaks and faith based government grants, many churches would fold up their tents

And so would many other non-profits, which the government also gives the same breaks to, in recognition of the virtue of charitable work being beneficial for society, and support of such reflects a moral belief that is found in Scripture, (Gn. 47:22) though not exclusively. But accepting the freedom not to pay taxes, though that now can come at the cost of freedom to officially affirm a political candidate (at least conservative ones), is not the same as asking for support, and a church should accept either it requires a compromise of faith, and the normative Biblical means of support is through its members. (3Jn. 1:5-8)

it also picks my pocket and forces me to support religious ideas that go against my conscience.

And members of the church also normatively do pay taxes, even for things they do not support., and the rest of your rant against churches not paying taxes would also apply to liberal non-profits which work for your seemingly atheistic agenda, as well as support liberal ones which have far fewer members and pose no real threat to your world view.

Finally, I am not interested in any spiritual sword play using biblical quotes or any other biblical references in this debate. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of democratic republics. It's writings do not discuss those concepts in any way.

I am sorry but as much as may like, you cannot separate the two, and your statement requires more Scripture references. If you knew the Bible then you would see that the idea of election is clearly supported, with moral requirements, as is the separation of the church from the civil authorities, and its functions are taught, and the effects of leadership exampled, with warnings against trusting man with too much power, etc.

The only slight reference to any political system besides monarchy is in Acts, where Peter essentially set up a communistic society where all were to hand over their wealth which was then distributed and shared by all
You example a very superficial knowledge and understanding of Scripture. More than one type or example of government is seen in Scripture, and this one had a unique context, which makes it as far from what Communism produced as East Germany was/is from Paradise. In Acts 2-7 you have a new entity under the leadership of men who had and exercised no real authority except for manifestly spiritual power, which is made quite clear.

In addition, those who gave all did so voluntarily -- lying about it while living off the benefits was the sin of Acts 5 -- and their goods were not requisitioned by the apostles, while those who did the distributing "as every one had need" were openly living with their disciples and in the same condition. Find men like the apostles, as described in Scripture, and we can talk about a form of communism.

Moreover this "seminary" experience was temporary, and after that we see no indication that all the church (or any for that matter) lived in such a commune, but that believers had their own houses, and husbands were require to provide for their own, and there were believers who who were rich yet who were not required to sell all, but not trust in such ("in God we trust") but be wiling and ready to give, as "forasking all" requires of the heart. (1Cor. 11:22; 1Tim. 5:8; 6:17-19)

I find it interesting when communism is brought up by fundamentalists as something to be abhored since it illustrates a fuzzy knowledge of their own stories.

I find it interesting as well as grievous how much atheists and such can misconstrue the Bible to justify their war against its God, while raising an alarm about those who seek to live by it, and thus require sound exegesis.

I am an atheist, so I don't carry a flag for liberal Christians

I had not read this far, but basically assumed this due to your degree of antagonism and bias.

But I do have the same goals as they do, as they see our country as multi-cultural and multi-religious

It is, but that is not what they seek, but work toward a goal of a culture and a world that is unified according to a basic ideology which sees the world as victims of traditional moral authority, and militates against the sanctity of marriage, parental authority, and freedom to oppose liberalism and its support of abortion, homosexual relations, etc., while it even opposes the principal of capitalism in which a man is rewarded according to his own labor, and people give voluntarily, and the State remains small.

It is not surprising you aligned with liberal Christians, as you have a common antipathy toward the world reflecting conservative Christian values, and the reality is that if the evangelical movement was aligned with them, as Jesse Jackson types who seek their own type of ideological rule are, then they would have no real objection.

f how important it is for the health of our country and for the freedom to worship to have MORE separation and not less

More would be anti-historical, which is why atheists even fight against things like crosses in national cemeteries, while more separation is indeed needed for your atheistic goals to be accomplished, would be in clear contrast to what the Founders overall and America historically supported. For while atheists themselves example how the Bible can be misconstrued and abused, lacking any supreme transcendent authority by which to based and examine morality by, you are left to your own "golden compass" which easily points south, as what seems reasonable to you can easily justify the oppression and murders which Communism exampled, and in fact, atheists fosters the "political religion" atheists lie Mao enjoyed. Even now some atheists who support removing children from the homes of conservative Christians, rationalizing that if we do it to drug pushes why not do them?

Your arguments and sympathy for Christian dominionism are not effective, fraught with historical errors, and totally unconvincing. The place you want to "return" the country to never existed in America, and hopefully never will.

Rather, the atheistic arguments and sympathy for what would be state-sanctioned support of atheism, which even by silence effectively teaches no dependence upon or gratitude to a Creator, are what are erroneous interpretations and based upon ignorance and selective use of historical material, and imagined a country which never existed in America, and hopefully never will.

I concur with Webster in his warning that, "If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity."

And again, this is the result of the liberal ethos the objectively baseless moral reasoning of the Left is promoting in America.

While recognizing that this discussion thread skirts the very edges of what is permitted in Talk2Action comments, I must speak to the following statement:

"And i am a fundamental Christian, and the Lord Jesus was even more so,"

No, Jesus was not any kind of Christian. He was born into a faithful Jewish family, and he lived and died a Jew. His followers were not named "Christian" until some time after his assassination. (see Acts 11:26) Christian Fundamentalism arose among conservative U.S. Protestants in the final decades of the 19th century, nearly 1900 years after Jesus lived.

As for the accuracy of the many "quotes" purporting to show certain of our nation's founders as being far more traditionally Christian than they actually were, I refer you to the excellent work of Chris Rodda, who also contributes regularly to this site.

...that is giving Christians a very bad name in this country. Doesn't the book of Proverbs say "A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches?"

I want God in control of my life, but I do not want Dominionist evangelical Christians in charge of my life. There is a huge difference. If these people come to power, God will not rule this country--people with a certain interpretation of God (which may or may not be Biblically correct) will rule this country. There's not much difference between making the Old Testament moral law the law of the land and Koranic Shari'a law as interpreted by right-wing Islamic groups, which you fear. It's all about power and control. There is not much difference between the morality of so-called "honor killings" (which you deplore) and the morality calling for the executing those who do not conform to Old Testament law (gays, unfailthful women, and defiant children), which Dominionists have called for. Women will lose many rights under Dominionists; so will people of color, I'm sad to say, despite the fact that they are involved. It's been going on for decades yet only now is it getting the attention it needs. "Turn back, O man, and forswear your foolish ways..."

If these people come to power, God will not rule this country--people with a certain interpretation of God (which may or may not be Biblically correct) will rule this country... It's all about power and control.. There's not much difference between making the Old Testament moral law the law of the land and Koranic Shari'a law as interpreted by right-wing Islamic groups,

You rhetoric reveals why you and those of like misconstruance and animosity see that as "dangerous." For not only do you have a skewed concept of what a basically Christian society with a government whose underlaying ethos is basically reflective of Christian morality, but it would indeed be dangerous to a ethos which, among other things, has resulted in half a million Americans dead due to AIDS, and 1 out 4 of child bearing age infected with an SID, etc, etc, let alone a generation of aborted infants. (Revealing Statistics)

But you are right about it being all about power and control, that of working to see the power of God change souls and be controlled by Him, and which would be manifested in moral choices, part of which is voting.

On the other side are those who push their social engineering beginning at kindergarten, and to pass laws which make those who oppose such things as homosexual relations, abortion into criminals, controlled by the state, unless they sanction such, while engaging in psychological tactics of intimidation (such as implemented according to the marketing of Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen).

The fact is that you cannot separate the State and its educational and legal institutions from a basic ideology, that can largely morally function as a religion. In a democracy the people will choose what that is, and it will be reflected in their votes, and thy have and thus things are different today from when approximately half of all American children learned from the Christian McGuffey Reader, and later (even) the Unitarian Horace Mann assured that his system "inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible...," (Mann, Twelfth Annual Report for 1848 of the Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts. Reprinted in Blau 183-84; Cause and Effect ) though he did exhort that Bible reading be without comment to discourage sectarian bickering.

And as Tocqueville stated, "the Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other; and with them this conviction does not spring from that barren traditionary faith which seems to vegetate in the soul rather than to live.' Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

And finally, on in which Lincoln could pray, "We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God...Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!" LINCOLN'S PROCLAMATION of a NATIONAL FAST DAY

...without seemingly knowing it. Having been part of the evangelical movement, and watching it turn from God-worship to Bible-worship to Flag/Country/Constitution-worship, and basically focusing on three particular topics--sex (including marriage, abortion, and homosexuality), money, and GodAndCountry as one deity, the exact three topics the Dominionists focus on--I was happy to get out and find that the liberal mainline actually preaches Jesus and Him Crucified, and our sacrifice to the world for His sake--in other words, doing right by people and the world without being a part of it, and being pro-active to the world's problems and not re-active. I think you should do some more reading about exactly who is involved with Dominionism--I think you would find it extremely eye-opening. They have several home-schooling curricula out there--take a look at their doctrines through them. Open your eyes, your ears and your heart and find what GOD really wants of you, not the evangelical church. It astounds me how many people place USA equal to God or just below him, as if it was a demi-god, and the Constitution a holy document when it doesn't even mention God at all. It does say there shall be no establishment of a state religion, meaning, the government is to be secular, apart from the church. That's basic Constitutional learning and not a liberal interpretation.

What i see is wild imagination that rivals that a certain cult that imagined a James Dobson becoming president and persecuting them. I feel i can "assure" you, sadly, that NAR type groups will achieve little progress, due to the increasingly compromised sprotuiality of the evangelical church, which is becoming more like society, rather than changing it. What you should hope for, and be part of even if only for this nations sake, is a revived and holy and mature Christian faith, such as produced so many classic worship songs and commentaries (Matthew Henry, etc.)
I honestly cannot see any danger in what Tabachnick is all hot about, while rather than simply focusing on the NAR, what Tabachnick conveyed was that she opposes the conservative evangelical faith as it threatens a liberal ideology which i see as being just as aggressive and far, far more pervasive, and manifestly deleterious.

I actually grew up in a church started by Mike Bickle (IHOP leader) and eventually went on to do an internship with the International House of Prayer. To a christian outside of the culture of this theology I am sure it may sound harmless. However, there are serious ramifications to the extremism that is very present within this society. As someone who comes from within the movement and left, I know that it can be crushing to the teens and youth they target. While it may seem to you they they are promoting "Christian spiritual brotherhood" and "praying to change the country for the better," I know very well that the prevailing theme within the prayer sessions and teachings is actually war. I know that threaded throughout every conversation is the phrase "there is no peace until he (Jesus) returns" and that the plan is to pursue war until their ideals are total.

At what point will we stop spending our energy on praying against STDs and AIDS (which by the way is not only an issue affecting women, and in many cases the reason why statistics are higher for women are because many more women get screened for certain STDs than men.) and start spending our energy on education?

Tolerance is about choice and remembering that each of us has a our own voice and the power to make our own decisions. The minute that right is threatened I start having a problem. I do not have an issue with religion in its pure state, which is belief. I do have a problem when people seek control and use fear and manipulation to wield that control, especially when youth are targeted. As someone who as a youth bought into this culture...I am VERY familiar with how dangerous it can be. Everyone has a problem extremist Islam, but no one bats an eye at Christian extremism which in my opinion, can lead to the same destruction. When people believe they are mandated by God (specifically when it comes to world domination), there is little they would not do.

that the plan is to pursue war until their ideals are total...t each of us has a our own voice and the power to make our own decisions. The minute that right is threatened I start having a problem.

I do also, and see the "Left" seeking to take that away, not only by seeking to intimidate those who oppose them by physiological means (if they they really believe we are all "haters" and that those who oppose homosexuality are irrationally fearful of them, or of being one, then it indicates they are suffering from a psychological condition), but by seeking to passing such things as the so-called "Fairness doctrine" which would do the opposite, and laws that criminalize peaceful opposition to their idea of moral behavior, while they engage overall in the more demonstrative type of protests. As noted, the tactics of Kirk and Madsen can be seen being applied beyond their purpose.

I am VERY familiar with how dangerous it can be. Everyone has a problem extremist Islam, but no one bats an eye at Christian extremism which in my opinion, can lead to the same destruction.

You are either lying, indoctrinated or simply deluded. Honestly. Evangelical Christians, from Southern Baptists to Assemblies of God or holiness Pentecostals have never been known to fly airplanes into buildings to done bomb belts when going to the local mall, and if you knew much about the Bible versus the Qur'an you would understand why. And fighting for your country in its Armed forces is not restricted to Christians, and while the Biblical texts can be abused (as atheists also example), so strong is it against religious violence and retribution that it has often fostered total pacifism, which Sargent York struggled with. The latest attempt to link Christian faith with Islamic-type violence was a man who would qualify as a liberal Christian, not a fundamental evangelical.

When people believe they are mandated by God (specifically when it comes to world domination), there is little they would not do.

Not so, there is a lot they will no do, including assuming the coercive power of the State (which the church of Rome yet asserts), as long as Scripture and not men are the supreme moral authority, the latter of which is what such things from Inquisitions to the Utah War to the Branch Davidians and Jim Jones required. But what is the difference between Christians seeking to see God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven, which does include working to some degree to see leadership with supports its morality elected, and those who basically hold to the opposite doing the same? Both are movements, both have their PACS, while the latter have seen the more "progress," from the present President to the U.N., while the Republicans are more like Democrats every decade. If you want to argue against which kind of Christianity best understands God's will, or whether State atheism is better than one that reflects the general Christian ethos, then i look forward to responding.

But Tabachnick's war is with more than this fringe and aberrant group, whose influence i think has little depth, despite their desire for visibility, but it seems her war is with the evangelical ethos in general, which threatens a Liberal ideological world view which they want the government to reflect, and for that cause the NAR is useful.

This interview, your research, the website. . .all greatly welcome and incredibly important. Here are a few comments from someone who was once a "bible junkie," campus crusader, jews for jesus, pentecostal-evangelical. . .(then Progressive Protestant Minister and longtime Interfaith Chaplain turned Freethinking Writer and Social Worker. . .whew!). OK, on to the comment:

Excellent point regarding the cloaked (deceptive) language these folks use. I'm convinced that exposing the true meanings behind the preachings will reveal the honest intent of the pulpiteering politicians. This is one reason I commend Talk to Action and urge anyone to raise specific questions to candidates for public office such as "If you had to choose, Bible or Constitution?" or "Would you like to see Jews, Buddhists, the Nation become Christian?" or "Do you believe you are guided by God/Jesus to lead the country by the Bible?" or "Would you work to mandate Christian prayers and biblical principles in all public schools, courts and congress?" IF these folks are honest (and I have my doubts they would tell the full truth) we would hear "Bible. . .Yes. . .Yes. . .Yes!"

As for whether this is a "new movement" I will just say that we were deeply brainwashed in this mentality back in the 60's and 70's and I see this current resurgence as nothing but a "logical" (sic) result of the identical ideology from "have dominion" in Genesis to "rule with Christ" in The Revelation and all through Christianist history.

Perhaps the difference today is that we have people like you (Frank Schaeffer, Jeff Sharlet, et al) shining a bright network of lights on what's really going on here.

I read the article first, and luckily, had the time to listen to the full hour of Fresh Air yesterday. Your information confirmed exactly what I've been trying to tell people for years but didn't have a name for--and many of them, even conservative Christians, didn't believe me. I witnessed the related Prosperity Gospel idea creeping into campus parachurches and felt very scared. I have been referring people to the NPR article and link to the interview in relevant internet circles where this kind of thing is discussed. It is heavy on my heart, and I fear that many of my evangelical friends are or will be caught up in Dominionism, and I will be left to reason with people who were once reasonable but who are no longer.

Evidence violence is more common than believed Think I've been making things up about experiencing Christian Terrorism or exaggerating, or that it was an isolated incident? I suggest you read this article (linked below in body), which is about our great......ArchaeoBob(1 comment)

Demon Mammon? An anthropologist from outer space might be forgiven for concluding that the god of this world is Mammon. (Or, rather, The Market, as depicted by John McMurtry in his book The Cancer Stage of......daerie(0 comments)

Witchhunts in Africa and the U.S.A. Nigerian human rights activist Leo Igwe has recently written at least two blog posts about how some African Pentecostal churches are sending missionaries to Europe and the U.S.A. in an attempt to "re-evangelize the......Diane Vera(2 comments)

Charles Taze Russell and John Hagee No doubt exists that Texas mega-church Pastor John Hagee would be loathe to be associated with the theology of Pastor C.T. Russell (wrongly credited with founding the Jehovah's Witnesses) but their theological orbits, while......COinMS(0 comments)

Republican infighting in Mississippi After a bruising GOP runoff election for U.S. Senator, current MS Senator Thad Cochran has retained his position and will face Travis Childers (Democrat) in the next senate election. The MS GOP is fractured......COinMS(5 comments)